More Break-Ins at the University of Victoria

Disconcerted at being left out of the recent Climategate publicity, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria on Vancouver Island breathlessly blamed (now here) recent break-ins at the university’s climate center on shadowy fossil fuel groups. Weaver connected the break-ins to Britain’s Climategate, which IPCC officials have attributed to shadowy Russian secret agents. Weaver said that the shadowy group took a “dead” computer and ruffled his papers. Weaver said that the ruffling of his papers was “evidence of a larger effort to discredit climate science”.

In other news from the University of Victoria, the Department of Anthropology issued an urgent warning about numerous break-ins throughout the campus, an excerpt from which folows:

Subject: FW: Urgent/Campus break-ins

Hello all,

I’ve just learned that there have been a number of office and lab break-ins across campus in recent days–initially Science & Engineering buildings, but now Cornett & BEC. Psychology has had several offices and labs broken into, and last night there were break-ins in second-floor offices in BEC. Entry seems to be happening by jimmying/forcing locks.

In the short term, you need to ensure that small, portable valuables are NOT LEFT IN YOUR OFFICES, particularly at night when the break-ins appear to have been happening. Consider what would happen to your teaching and research if your laptop went missing–back important files up today …

Keep an eye open and report suspicious activity

GCM (General Crime Modelers) believe that the break-ins at the Psychology Department at the University of Victoria are the proverbial “smoking gun” that proves the teleconnection between American fossil fuel interests and the Russian secret service, that resulted in Climategate.

As crime vigilante Weaver asks:

“The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?”

A break in at the Psych Dept? That would be the first place I would look for evidence of malfeasance if I were a Russian/fossil fuel agent. Or perhaps I would do it to see if Weaver was actually delusional/crazy.

Welcome back! Steve….
I saw this (UVic) in the Calgary Herald on the weekend and just about choked! We all know that when someone, unknown to you, comes into your building, into your office, and steals a…..computer! they really wanted your climate data. Why do reputable papers actually publish this crap? A company in our office building in downtown Calgary, a known hotspot for sensitive climate data, had 19, nineteen, yes, nineeeteeen computers stolen over a period of two years. I would suspect an “organized campaign of harasment”….or possibly some perp’s looking for easy $$$$? BTW, they had security locks on the doors. The perps just piggybacked on unsuspecting employees, including one that shared an elevator with a guy exiting the building with a laptop in his arms and said of him “he was a well-dressed and charming young man…”!!!! (who wanted climate data, obviously!)

ELEANOR HALL: And yet climate change sceptics have leapt on the emails as evidence that scientists are manipulating their data and hiding evidence that contradicts the warming argument.

Let me quote one of the emails that you wrote to a colleague which does seem to suggest that you had exactly that concern. You write to Phil Jones about the tree ring data of another colleague and you say “Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. How does he explain the apparent selection of the trees that he uses?”

And you go on to say that the issue of withholding data is a hot potato. What are you getting at in this email?

TOM WIGLEY: Well I’m asking questions and that’s the way science works. You know there’s a to-and-fro of question and answer and I asked a number of questions and I received perfectly adequate answers.

And in this particular case I was basically hoodwinked by one of the well known climate sceptics, a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada and I’d read his blog on this issue and then I asked questions on the basis of what I read.

It turns out that he was actually distorting the data and misrepresenting the data.

Peter West wrote about the ABC Australia interview:
“Maybe you should point out that this is libellous”.
Steve,
Given that the question and answer (and the related CRU e-mails) quite unambiguously relate to the Briffa work, I suspect that you do have a clear and demonstrable case of libel. Have you considered bringing a highly publicised action against Wrigley for the comment? I would gladly contribute to a fund to support such action, and I suspect that many other of your supporters here and on WUWT would be equally glad to do so. It would have the advantage of putting Wrigley in a court of law with the onus on him to prove his statement that you have misrepresented and distorted the Briffa data.

excuse me.
I’m a geophysics student of Hasanuddin University Indonesia.
could you told me, what’s the point of skeptics? and the alarmist?
what’s the true, when I read an article from the skeptics, I found the different graph from 1400 til 1900
when I know in 1800 the Industry Revolution has begin. what about in 1400? what happen?
could you explain to me?
and what the problem between political business with global warming?.

thank you for your time.

Steve: I do not encourage people trying to make one-paragraph explanations of the problem. If you’re interested in the topic, I’d encouraged you to read up on the matter starting with IPCC reports and the literature under discussion.

Laptop theft is a very common and has been going on ever since they came out. There probably very many if any businesses or institutions that has any of them which hasn’t had them stolen. Sometimes they are taken in a break-in. Sometimes it is an inside job.

A question I would like to pose is this: Who would most likely benefit from exposing those employed at CRU to scrutiny by releasing the EAE (East Anglia Emails) and why? Or even more importantly, who had more to lose if the CRU hadn’t been exposed because of the EAE?

Let me elaborate.

CRU was under full damage control mode before the leak. Steve had single-handedly filled the Hockey Stick graph with glaring holes. Research into the history of the graph, we had learned that the graph was a compilation of different data sets. These data sets came from different sources, and covered different time frames. Paul Jones, Michael Mann, James Hansen, and Keith Briffa all had a hand in its invention. Others might have had a bit role in this, but none was any more important than the four I’ve just mentioned.

The scepticism and scrutiny, made relevant by McIntyre’s research, was something no less than a smoking gun of conspiracy that I doubt CRU could ill afford to taint the ‘teams’ mission.

Something needed to be done. Someone had to become a scapegoat in order to take the focus away from the CRU and its credibility.

Could it be neatly packaged as one man was responsible for creating the graph, full of false data, and let him hang to dry in public. All the while knowing that their secret was safe, because the scapegoat would not be willing to divulge the truth, for fear of sacrificing a belief he held so dearly that was worthy of the lies it was built upon?

But who would take the blame? Who was the most expendable? Who would be so gullible?
But even more importantly, who saw through their scheming and became angry. How could he thwart their plans and make them all pay? How could he embarrass them and still maintain an air of respect?

‘I know’, he says to himself, ‘I’ll expose us all to ridicule and somehow manage to not destroy our work, I’ll just damage it enough so I get to save face and still not expose too greatly the lies surrounding climate change.’

Will you guys continue to cast doubt on NASA’s GISS center credibility. NASA is iconic and if doubts around their data credibility are advanced this story will shake more foundations. The Saudis have called for an independent investigation aside from the IPCC. Will any one of you get involved with their approach? The Saudis hold the key to this dilemma since economically they have a lot to lose. You guys need to become more globally connected. I enjoy following your travails and triumphs.

I saw an article where someone working with the IPCC held in his hand a picture of the debunked hockey stick. Why are they continuing to use this picture when Mann’s research has shown to questionable?

Is his research fundamental to AGW? Is CRU’s data and GISS’s data the data that is being used to run all AGW models?

Monster wildfires in Australia, January golfers in PEI, ruined fruit crops in California, snowless ski runs in Switzerland, starving polar bears in the North, devastated trees in Stanley Park. Climate change is no longer a vague threat. The climate change we are in store for over the next few centuries will be larger and occur faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Brilliantly researched, Keeping Our Cool is a comprehensive and engaging examination and explanation of global warming, with a specific emphasis on climate change in Canada. In an engaging and accessible way, Weaver explains the levels of greenhouse gas emissions needed to stabilize the climate and offers solutions and a path toward a sustainable future.

Wow, what do you know? Andy sure get’s around! Al Gore would be pleased…

Spies ruffled his very important climate papers and didn’t take any? Sounds like when a teenager broke into my brother’s house in college, turned everything upside down and took nothing. My brother was insulted that the theives turned their noses up at his record player.

Search CA for the phrase “there is no conspiracy”. Steve and I have discussed on several ooccasions how there need be no conspiracy when people are responding independently and simultaneously to a common cause. Hey, who doesn’t love Earth?

m miller: Steve talked about some monkeying with the US GISS record here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/02/16/adjusting-ushcn-history. Also, I was a coauthor of a paper published by the Fraser Institute last year that discussed some general problems in the surface record, and made use of Steve’s graph, which is in Chapter 3 of the report here.

As far as I can tell Walmart did not run out of aluminum foil. I mean if someone played a prank on the MannStickBear parade again. I know it’s fun and all, but please they appear rather sensitive to the supply of aluminum foil.

Ruffled papers, and the alarm of russian secret spies is blaring.

But no alarms are sounding when the resident MannStickBear parade of NASA seem to be brainwashing kids into believing that they’ll suffer the fate of death by suffocation, or death by crushing, or death by melting like lead. Apparently, in the minds of kids, just like the venusians on Venus, ’cause they also got run over by the runaway greenhouse effect.

Personally I had come to believe that such things as the weak magnetic field, the planets rotation, the longer solar days, and, oh, just being a tiny tad bit closer to the sun, was what offed the venusians, but hey that’s me.

Steve, glad to see your in high spirits. The people in environmental science here at my university have been skeptical for quite some time and are now beside ourselves with relief that the greater community will finally be getting smart about this wacky post-normal science.

Folks, I have an idea for an interesting campaign. IPCC Reports have a chapter on “Detection and Attribution”. Det. Weaver has shown a shall-we-say unique ability to attribute break-ins at the University of Victoria social science departments to a shadowy organization of American fossil fuel interests and Russian secret agents. Let’s start a nominating campaign to make Weaver the IPCC Lead Author for the chapter on Detection and Attribution.

This theft is simply a statistical necessity. We all know that the overwhelming majority of all scientists agrees with the IPCC, so whenever a theft occurs in a scientist’s office, the odds are overwhelming that a fervent supporter of the consensus is the victim.

I just listened also to the audio stream of the ABC Australia interview. Thus I noticed the delicate niceness that Dr. Tom Wigley, a former CRU director allegedly “hoodwinked” by Steven McIntyre’s insights, first said the best approach would be to, you know, fight science with science…

I don’t think that I said that but, I mean, I do know the email that you’re referring to. I don’t think that is the best approach. You know, I think the best approach to these people who criticise our work, whether it’s in other scientific papers or on blogs or whatever, is to, you know, fight science or even pseudo science with science.

Instead of “watching with horror”, why doesn’t he make like Judith Curry and contribute an essay here as to why Lindzen is wrong? I’m sure Steve would give him as much space as he needs. No 1-hour speeches. No soundbites. Go nuts. Spill it all. Engage.

Actually, bender, the question that I have with regard to Andy Weaver is why a well-known figure in the climate science community and *** Editor in Chief *** of a peer-reviewed scientific journal is presenting himself to the public as the climate science equivalent of a 9/11 truther (e.g. “big oil” conspiracy etc. etc.).

And what does this say about the peer review process in climate science? We know from the CRU e-mails how Mann et al. gamed the peer review process. Do you think, with Andy Weaver in charge, that papers that don’t tow the AGW line will have an easy time getting approved for publication in the Journal of Climate?

It’s pretty clear even without the fact that the mole in the CRU has made contact with specific individuals outside the CRU and even transmitted some otherwise unreleased data to individuals, that the Climategate material was a leaked event.

Hackers could not possibly have organized all of the material from such a long period of time or from so many computers without including an enormous amount of useless and meaningless material. Its zipped form and the fact that this file was sent to the BBC a month earlier – BBC then sat on it and kept mum as it did not support their warmist agenda and only later started to talk about having it- belies any spies, Russian or otherwise.

I fail to see how breaking into a psych dept indicates fossil fuel spies. Such paranoia perhaps indicates a psychotic break by Dr Weaver!

Oh! If you read the e-mails, it appears that the CRU Team seeks major funding from the oil people – probably lots more than the skeptics receive from such sources. They bad mouth the people they seek support from – so what else do they do that makes no sense?

So, who is calling the kettle black here?

What the warmists refuse to admit is that fossil fuel producers actually stand to make a lot of money from carbon trading and the increased cost of fuel. They are not against producing less and selling it for more.

I heard Dr Weaver on the local CBC program here in BC and he also added that 2 suspicious characters dressed as maintenance people were also seen skulking about in the climate research building. His attempt to portray himself as a beseiged but noble researcher fighting off the saboteurs employed by big oil was clearly over the top, but sadly it probably resonated with the average listener.
Later in the week in other interview, he indicated that Canada was an embarassment to the rest of the world and he could not understand why PM Harper would show up at Copenhagen other than to see if if there was a Tim Horton’s in the area. The man’s arrogance and cynicism knows no bounds.

OK. To be fair, paranoia in an aging hippie is not necessarily a symptom of lingering, irreversible brain-damage resulting from their youthful excess – maybe it really was the KGB. Could someone make the KGB case pro & con?

And regardless, crazy does not mean wrong. We can ignore transparent evidence of instability and focus on the science. Has anyone outside the commune accessed the data, methods and code?

This is the FSB as we are now called (KGB is old Soviet Union) We have ruffled many papers since we were set up in 1991 and found all kinds of interesting tidbits. We rarely bother with laptops, however, as the passwords are too difficult!

I was surprised to learn that Dr. Weaver’s computer was BROKEN!!?? Maybe this explains why the IPCC models were so far off. If he is going to be made Lead Author he should at least have a working computer.
And to think that the thieves took time to peer review his papers. Strange.

The single most important development in science over the last year is that we now have developed a comprehensive understanding of the carbon cycle and we can transfer that directly into policy relevant science.

Here’s an interview with Andrew Weaver posted on the Innovation Canada website today:

To take you all down Memory Lane, University of Victoria was the site of a famous Al Gore speech in 2007. It was much joked about at the time. Students invited him but as the day neared it turned out he was charging 199 loonies (should US dollars be called now “eaglets?”) per head. Students got tiffed but were easily assuaged by some seats in a room with an audio feed of the speech.

BTW, Andrew Weaver is mentioned in contemporaneous articles on the matter.

I am with Bender. What I am waiting for is a Congressional investigation that would open all the mysteries of GISS, and NOAA the light of a public audit. The group would be appointed by a bi-partisan committe, and thier work would be publically archived for all to see. No unpublished adjustments, no mysteries. And yes, they would have to answer to Monday Morning quarterbacks (or shall we say statisticians).

The same would hold true for other areas such as atmospheric and solar physics, etc….

Richard Graves has a great post about the real scandal, and I think he’s right on, given the fact that there was another attempt last week to hack a Canadian Government Centre’s e-mails.

Here’s “It’s Getting Hot In Here – Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement” trying their best to conjure a conspiracy. The link in the quote above points to a piece on the Huffington Post site that’s, well how should I put it, off on a tangent.

The real scandal is not the email archive, or even how it was acquired, sorted, and uploaded to a Russian server, but rather the emerging evidence of a coordinated international campaign to target and harass climate scientists, break and enter into government climate labs, and misrepresent climate science through a sophisticated media infrastructure on the eve of the international climate talks.

But the University of Victoria professor admits it looks suspiciously like he was singled out when his campus office was broken into twice in the past year, the only one so targeted in his building on the campus. His papers were rifled through and a computer stolen.

“It was mainly the intrusion of it and done twice within three days,” Weaver said Thursday. “There’s no conspiracy theories. The issue is really about the harassment of climate scientists.”

A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations’ panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.

Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body.

Let’s be grateful for small steps in the direction of disclosure and truth. This doesn’t brighten my view of the NSERC tower of power, but Dr. Weaver has at least pulled one of his wellies out of the quicksand…